Islam is an all-encompassing belief-system. It is quite different from those other monotheisms which, for obvious reasons while they are still a small group in the West, Muslims like to have "so very much" in common -- that "three abrahamic faiths" pitch that once went over well, but nowadays appears to attract only the most muddle-headed or those who, while supposedly being Christian or Jewish clergymen, have brought their art of self-preening or cravenness to such a level that they become Defenders of the Faith, that Faith being Islam.
But Infidels can no longer be stopped. Once they begin to realize that the texts of Islam are not hermetic, and can be studied, they will study them. Once they realize that a knowledge of classical Arabic is not essential to learning about Islam, not least because 80% of the world’s Muslims know not a bit of Arabic, classical or otherwise, and that even many Arabs have difficulty understanding classical Arabic and certainly the text of the Qur’an (see Christoph Luxenberg on the 20% of the Qur’an that is inexplicable, in his view, until one recognizes an Ur-text of Syriac -- that is, the Aramaic of Edessa), they will dare to open them. So Infidels are now free to read the immutable texts of Islam -- Qur'an, hadith, and Sira -- read, and reread, and study with growing understanding, but not necessarily growing delight or pleasure. They can find out about the interpretative doctrine of “naskh” or “abrogation,” by which -- as in the common law -- the texts deemed later cancel out, or abrogate, the texts deemed to have been set down earlier. And those later texts, presumably from the “Medinan” period of Muhammad’s existence, are far harsher than the softer, “Meccan” verses from the period when Islam was still weak.
Infidels can do so many things. They can find out, as apparently George Bush was incapable of finding out or being told, why Qur’an 5.32 cannot conceivably be understood without the context of the succeeding verse, 5.33. They can learn the real meaning, the meaning that Islam and Muslims assign to the seemingly benign Qur’anic observation that “there is no compulsion in religion.” They can find out what is Halal and what Haram in Islam. They can find out what Muslims are taught to think of sculpture, of paintings depicting living creatures, of music. They can find out what Muslims think of free and skeptical inquiry, and of the possibility of someone born into Islam being permitted to choose for himself whether to remain a Muslim, or to abandon that faith for another, or for no faith at all. They can find out. They can find out the details of Muhammad’s life, and consider what is the likely effect of those details on Muslims who are taught to regard Muhammad, a warrior who took part in 78 military campaigns, 77 of them offensive, as the Model of Conduct, the Perfect Man -- uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil -- for all Muslims, and for all time. Consider the implications of that in light of the beheading of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the satisfaction taken when he heard of the assassinations of Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan, the “treaty-making model” of Al Hudaibiyyah, and of course the business with little Aisha.
The Qur’anic text is available online, a click away, with several different translations set out synoptically. Much of the Hadith is too, and so is the Sira. More and more studies by the great Western students of Islam, from the period of genuinely free and uninhibited study, roughly 1860 to 1960, are being gathered into sourcebooks (such as Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad) or republished (especially in accessibly cheap Indian editions). More and more people have uncovered what the Great of the Past had to say about Islam, writing as they did in a period when no punches had to be pulled, and one could speak or write one’s mind. What did that great religious reformer John Wesley write about Islam? And the most learned of nineteenth-century American statesmen, John Quincy Adams? What did that wise student of men and events, Alexis De Tocqueville, write about Islam, based on his wide knowledge, including his observations in Algeria? What did Gladstone have to say about the Turks, and about their role in Europe, and about the Bulgarian Wars? What did Winston Churchill, with his knowledge of history, say about Muslims and Islam?
And above all, we know have the phenomenon of “defectors” from Islam, the apostates from Islam, who in the Western world are no longer fearful, and are willing to speak from their own lifetimes of experience of being born into Islam and then choosing to abandon it, some for Christianity (Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish), and some to be resolute freethinkers, such as Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, and so many more. Some have been Iranians, some Pakistanis, some Arabs, some from still other backgrounds. Muslim spokesmen would prefer that you pay as little attention to these keen observers as possible, and attempt on every occasion to shut them up or shout them down. But up or down, those Muslim spokesmen and enforcers have not succeeded, for when someone such as Ibn Warraq writes Why I Am Not a Muslim and Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes her own stirring testimony in Infidel, or when Ali Sina, with a growing army of fellow apostates, conducts his own lucid campaign from the heights of www.faithfreedom.org, Muslims in this country cannot, as they would in a minute in a Muslim country, shut such efforts down. Thus we, the Infidels, are the beneficiaries of such valuable witnesses, such indispensable temoignage.
It seems a century ago that we were willing to engage in those phony “dialogues” which always end up being sinister apologies for Islam, with the non-Muslim clergymen willingly or unwillingly inveigled into participating into a farce of supposedly symmetrical fault-finding, a farce that relies heavily on Infidel ignorance of Islam, and willingness to assume that if some belief-system is called a “religion” then of course it must be a force for good, must be beyond criticism, and only that “handful of extremists” are not good. But “extreme” about what? If Islam is in its essence so unthreatening, so peaceful, so tolerant, so good, then why should someone who is fanatically in favor of that something good be a threat to Infidels?
Those “interfaith candlelight ceremonies” that were all the rage just after 9/11/2001 ring hollow today, especially with the list of all those Muslim clerics who appeared to utter all kinds of soothing words, and then were discovered in the past, or at the same time, or later on, to have been heard, even recorded, making quite different statements when they thought no non-Muslims were around. It has been quite a revelation, too, to discover the Islamic websites that counsel Muslims in how to talk to Infidels, telling exactly the things that should be said and the topics that should be carefully avoided, even explaining that one should “let the Sisters talk” if the subject is Islam and the Treatment of Women. And there are those Muslim websites that inform parents just how to wangle special treatment -- prayer rooms and suchlike -- from teachers and principals. It’s down to a science, all written out. And eventually someone is going to put all that advice for fellow Muslims together, and publish it, but as a warning to, and for the edification of, Infidels.
No Infidels need any longer accept the word of tireless apologists as to what those texts say, or what their "meaning" is, especially when we have all been treated to example after example of Tu-Quoque-and-Taqiyya, sometimes by omission, sometimes by deliberate misinterpretation for the limitlessly naive. Furthermore, we have the long historical record of Jihad-conquest, and the texts, written by Muslims themselves, on the subject of the necessity of Jihad, and the rules of Jihad -- here again, see Bostom's sourcebook, The Legacy of Jihad. We have 1350 years of such a record, and are entitled to study that record, from Spain in the west to what is present-day Indonesia in the east. We can study how non-Muslim populations slowly or quickly were reduced in size: what happened to the Copts of Egypt? What happened to the Jews and Armenians under Shah Abbas II in Iran? What happened to the Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula? What happened to the Christians of North Africa, where Tertullian and St. Augustine once lived? What happened to the Hindus of India under Muslim rule? Was it all wonderful, or is there reason to think that K. S. Lal and other Indian historians are right in their claim that between 60 and 70 million Hindus lost their lives? What was the historical record of Arab Muslims and slavery in Black Africa? Splendid? A tale of Muslim Wilberforces, long predating the English one? When was slavery formerly abolished in Arabia, and why? And is there any evidence of the continuance of slavery in Arab Muslim countries? And is there any evidence that Muslim scholars today have written about the continuing, indeed permanent, legitimacy of slavery, because it was recognized and accepted by Muhammad?
And these are not the only questions that need to be examined, studied, discussed. One wishes to know what happened to the Hindus of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Why did their numbers in the populations of those countries drop so precipitously, while the Muslim population of India has gone up, both relatively and absolutely? What has happened to Buddhists in southern Thailand, and why? What happened to the Christians of East Timor under Muslim rule? What has been happening to the Christians of the Moluccas? Or Iraq? Or Lower Egypt? Or in Lebanon over the past fifty years? What has happened to the French peres blancs and the Italian monks who tried to help the Muslims of Algeria, and for their pains were murdered? What is that history all about? What happened to the Armenians, and why was it that when Turks and Kurds killed those Armenians, they took pleasure in calling them "gavours" (Infidels), and were delighted if Armenian priests and their wives were among the victims, as recorded by eyewitnesses?
And here is yet another question that needs to be considered, to be discussed, to be pondered and not only in the corridors of power. What are the instruments of Jihad? Bush has focused quite monomaniacally on "terror" -- as if he cannot bring himself to see the use of the Money Weapon, carefully-targeted campaigns of Da'wa, and of course a demographic conquest that has been openly discussed by Muslims. It has been discussed by Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974, and by mild-mannered Pakistani accountants in the letters pages of "Dawn" (see that for December 5, 2001 for example). There are Muslim websites where these developments are openly discussed -- as they are by all kinds of Muslim posters at this (see "Naseem") and other websites.
Is it illegitimate for inhabitants of the Western or larger non-Muslim world to study these matters, and to raise these issues? Why? Is it illegitimate to discuss the proposition that one has a perfect right to defend the legal and political institutions that one's own society has received as a legacy, that others before one helped to create, over time, and that in every respect are flatly contradicted by what Islam inculcates? Is the individualism of the West, are our individual rights, those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be simply swept away, or to be subject to incessant attack by the adherents of a collectivist faith who do not believe in free speech, or in freedom of conscience, including the freedom to leave one faith for another, or to have no faith at all? Are these illegitimate questions?
And is it illegitimate to point out how frequently in history states and peoples have felt it necessary to expel others in their midst, and that it is a bit hasty to denounce all such efforts (though many certainly should be denounced), especially when one considers the reasons, the historical context, of the Benes Decree, which was adduced not as a model to follow, but as a case to study and ponder?
We in the West have an obligation to defend a civilizational legacy, even if many of us, individually, have not exactly proved ourselves worthy of it. And that includes considering measures that others have undertaken, to see if they provide lessons, any lessons at all, for us at this point in our endangered history.
And that is hardly illegitimate. It is the very least we should ask of ourselves, and of those who presume to "lead" us, or rather, in the cant of this cant-filled age, presume to "take a leadership role." Many people in this country have gone far beyond their so-called leaders, Democratic and Republican, in their understanding of Islam. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing.
Absolutely, I have a God-given right to defend myself against muslim attacks to body or to liberty. My question is, when am I justified to become offensive in response to this enemy that has declared and is waging war against me? Sending my son to Fallujah is not enough. The power centers of this jihad in Saudi Arabia and Iran remain untouched by American forces, politicians, or media. Islam demands that we treat it with more respect as our worst, to-the-death, enemy; it then deserves we expend more violence to drive it back into the desert, where it can wither. We have not delivered the type of message to islam that was written in Japanese and German blood a few decades ago. Is Western Union still in business, or what?
Another great, right on the money essay, Hugh. Of course, from the Islamist point of view, Infidels defending themselves from Islam is illegitimate and indeed oppressive to Muslims. The fact we remain non-Muslims is proof we're Islamophobic as well.
I certainly hope more Infidels educate themselves about what Islam is really all about. Given the idiocy on this issue from GW Bush and the Democrat Party, it's going to take the Infidel masses seeing past this twaddle to raise awareness about what Islam has in store should it ever achieve the dominance over mankind it craves. Fortunately the conservative base is far ahead of the Republican leadership in it's awareness, so there is some hope the Infidel masses will start wising up. As you said, the information is out there.
It would appear that some believe so...look at :
lawsuits against organizations and individuals sounding the alarm,
people leaking secret information pertaining to efforts to confound the jihad and the related financing,
the effort to squelch free debate by harassing speakers on campuses all across the US,
lawsuits in British courts against US and British authors by people named in books,
among others I am sure I am missing.
How do you provide for the common defense and promote general welfare and allow Islam to be practiced in any form that resembles orthodox Islam?
It will take like it or not folks, another major attack on the USA for Americans to take the Islamofacist threat serously and then only then because of a major angry backlash.
"temoignage" is French, meaning "testimonial" or "evidence."
"time-wasting" is English, as is "annoying."
Self-defense is an inalienable right of all people. Human beings in fact are biologically programmed to protect their own lives (as most living creatures ARE), and probably their families and possessions as well. According to most "religions" we are 'God's' creation--so why would 'God' program us genetically for self-defense and then forsake this aspect of His own creation for obscure reasons left to us in a book (especially an apocryphal one like the Kuran)? It just doesn't add up.
But whether the right to "slaughter the non-believers everywhere" is an inalienable right or not, however, is another question altogether. But it is obvious that as long as there are people who believe that they have a "god-given" right to kill other people in the name of any deity they worship or have been brainwashed by some book like the Kuran or group of "religious" clerics into believing they have the right to kill other people for "religious" purposes there will be a need to invoke the right to self-defense (which our biology in fact dictates).
Now one must ask if self-defense can be rhetorically construed as "illegitimate" what about suicide? IS suicide 'illegitimate'? (biology would say that it IS since it has wired us for self-preservation). The liberals (particularly the likes of those so-called "decision-makers" encrusted into the EU's Bureaucracy) had better consider this one-- because committing cultural suicide is really what they are doing by giving Islam the upper hand politically in the western democracies (on a silver platter I might add). How legitimate --or illegitimate-- is THAT?
I posted the following in what looks like to be the end of the previous thread. But I think it is applicable here as well.
The Smith Act, a federal statute, is still a valid criminal law. There is an analysis of it here:
http://www.saneworks.us/The-fuller-exposition-of-Why-Islam-vs-Islamists-article-463-1.htm
, but I think it is incomplete because it does not fully examine how it might be applied to certain activities in which some muslims currently participate.
The act originated at the beginning of the cold war in response to the threat to our republic from another dangerous ideology, communism.
For every reason it was used to protect and defend our constitution against communism, it should be used against the threat that sharia law poses.
______
"Now, read existing US law as codified in Title 18 (the federal criminal code), Section 2385:
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
This of course is the Smith Act of 1940, as amended. The Supreme Court has had two occasions to review cases prosecuted under the Smith Act. In the first case, Dennis v. US, 341 U.S.494 (1951), the Court heard appeals from Communist Party leaders who had been convicted of violating the Smith Act and whose conviction had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court examined the First Amendment and other constitutional challenges, was unpersuaded, upheld the statute as constitutional, and affirmed the convictions.
The second time the Court took a look at the Smith Act was six years later in the case of Yates v. US, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). By this time, however, the Court was now under the spell of Chief Justice Earl Warren and the other liberal Justices of the time. They had already tested their mettle in Brown v. Board of Education some three years earlier. The question might have been reasonably asked, would the Court sustain the legislation in the face of a First Amendment challenge and effectively overrule Dennis?
The Court delivered its answer by not even addressing the First Amendment issue. What the Court did do was to limit the Smith Act to cases where the advocacy for the overthrow of the government was more than merely theoretical and to require a real nexus between the advocacy and some action that was being urged to achieve the treasonous goal.
Now, if we were to take into consideration that the Jihadists who cite Shari’a do so to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, one might well argue that this alone satisfies the condition under the Smith Act for a criminal conviction even under the Yates holding. The argument is fairly straightforward.
The Jihadist, following Shari’a, teaches that the purpose of Islam is the submission of the world to Allah’s will as expressed in his perfect law, the Shari’a. Further, anyone who teaches that the Muslim must be faithful and adhere to the traditional and authoritative Shari’a is advocating in effect precisely the same thing. Jihad, which most certainly includes the use and the advocacy of the use of violence in the effort to overthrow the infidel government, is an obligation on the Muslim, either as part of the collective or as an individual. By virtue of the fact that this is a religious instruction and understood to be a call to action – to live by the Shari’a fully and faithfully – and not merely some theoretical theological or political discussion, the call to observe traditional and authoritative Shari’a is the call to arms in a clear and decisive way. It would be hard to understand how this would not be a prima facie violation of the Smith Act."
______
I just found this article this morning. I am going to research a bit more on the 2 cases cited (Dennis & Yates) and on the history of the Smith Act.
My initial reaction was of sheer amazement for how this act is still a valid federal statute and we hear nothing about its enforcement.
WHOEVER...TEACHES OR ADVOCATES OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE..
Any local Iman uttering words of encouragement in his kutbha towards the establishment of sharia and a caliphate should fall under this statute. The existance of a Koran within the Mosque ought to be sufficient probable cause to wiretap every single mosque in the country so those kutbhas can be monitored.
Those protesters in Jackson Hts. NY mentioned by another poster would also fall under this.
WHOEVER, WITH INTENT TO CAUSE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT...PUBLISHES, PRINTS WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER ADVISING OR TEACHING THE DUTY...DESIRABILITY, OR PROPRIETY OR OVERTHROWING ....ANY GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE,...OR WHO ATTEMPTS TO DO SO,..
Have not CAIR leaders stated that they would NOT want to give the impression they would NOT want sharia imposed? Didn't the founders of CAIR say they would want sharia to be the dominate law of the country or something to that effect?
OK, So when will the FBI arrest CAIR leaders who advocate eventual adoption of sharia law and when will they take down CAIR's website? Preferably it would be before the next Muslim Outreach Program and Sensitivity Training Seminar in which CAIR participates.
hugh, one of your best. but i'm curious as to why ex-azhar professor mark a. gabriel is never included in your lists of ex-muslims. it seems to me that each of his four recent books are excellent but that he is often ignored from the discussion. speaking of books - maybe mark should make this his next since his phd at al-azhar was in islamic history - i think the next book that needs to be written, along the lines of robert's "life of muhammad" is "islam - the first 100 years", showing how violent the religion was back in the day. it could be the first of a series of books on real islamic history including some of the things you mentioned - islam in egypt, in india, etc.
Hugh, thanks a million for keeping us enlightened about Islam and its tactics. There is one thing that pisses me more than Muslims is whenever in an interview a Muslim and an human being in involved, on a TV channel or what have you, and if pressing questions are asked by the interviewee, the Muslim tend to skate the questions. However, when the 'human' presses with factual material from Cowran with the hadith numbers etc., the Muslim gets away with stating that is taken out of context.
In my view everything is in context if we were to orientate ourselves and think we are at war with Muslims. They are our enemy. They will use deception to out-maneuver us whenever they can. They have declared war on us the very day the Cowran was written. The whole purpose of a Muslim is a complete submission to Mohd/Alla and Cowran.
Islam means 'Kill or convert all non-Muslims'. That is written in black and white in Cowran. Hence it is our duty to defend ourselves from the Islamic system which is trying to strangle our way of life.
hugh, one of your best. but i'm curious as to why ex-azhar professor mark a. gabriel is never included in your lists of ex-muslims. it seems to me that each of his four recent books are excellent but that he is often ignored from the discussion. speaking of books - maybe mark should make this his next since his phd at al-azhar was in islamic history - i think the next book that needs to be written, along the lines of robert's "life of muhammad" is "islam - the first 100 years", showing how violent the religion was back in the day. it could be the first of a series of books on real islamic history including some of the things you mentioned - islam in egypt, in india, etc.
Mr. Fitzgerald,
Excellent points all, as usual. Re: the three great Abrahamaic faiths, how did mohammed (or muslims in general) trace their lineage to Ishmael, son of Hagar (Sarai's slave) and Abram? Can you supply any reference reading?
Also, Is there not a reliable translation of Aramaic parts of these muslim books? Wasn't the Torah written in Aramaic? Surely Jesus' words (He spoke Aramaic) had to be translated into Greek or Latin in the New Testament.
"Is there not a reliable translation of Aramaic parts of these muslim books?"
-- from a posting above
If you are talking about the Qur'an, there is a controversy surrounding the work of the philologist of Syriac (that is, the Aramaic used in and around Edessa), Christoph Luxenberg. He suggests that the best way to clear up the approximately 20% of the Qur'an that does not make sense, or that contains a meaning that is only guessed at, is to posit an Ur-text, in Aramaic, or rather in Syriac, a text that begins as a Christian lectionary.
Muslims have done what they can to ignore the book and to try to get it ignored by others. But among those Western students of the early Qur'an -- and there are not many qualified to review Luxenberg's book, for they would need to have a native or near-native command of Arabic as well as his command of Aramaic -- some have been greatly impressed, others less impressed at first but have begun to come round, others less impressed and refusing to come round. When it comes to such matters, fear plays a part -- that is, outright physical fear, but also, and from the most surprising sources, simply a fear of antagonizing one's Muslim colleagues. It is an absurd situation.
Luxenberg did not appear out of nowhere. There was Alphonse Mingana, in the teens of the last century. There was Arthur Jeffrey's study of foreign loan-words in the Qur'an (the very idea that the Qur'an might be written in something other than the purest of classical Arabic, untainted by words from outside, disturbs many), a book compiled by the Columbia University scholar Arthur Jeffery, and published in a sumptuous edition, with typefaces in a half-dozen languages, by the tolerant and intelligent man who was then Gaekwar of Baroda.
You can consult the new, English-language edition of Luxenberg's "Die Syro-aramaische Lesen von der Koran" which, I assume, is based on the latest, that is the third, edition of his book in German. He has also written, incidentally, a study of the Arabic, but not he argues Qur'anic, inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock -- a study that suggests the Dome of the Rock may not be quite the Muslim structure everyone has always assumed it to be.
As for the Hadith and the Sira, I have no knowledge that versions appeared in Aramaic. But the best guide to these matters is that tireless writer, scholar, and compiler and prompter of others' scholarship, Ibn Warraq.
See his "What the Koran Really Says" and "The Origins of the Koran" and "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad." And google a few names: Alfred-Louis De Premare, Gerd Puin, Andrew Rippin should get you going to an area that is not easy going,
Hugh-
A blistering broadside.
This article of yours (and all of its hints- "What did John Adams say about Islam?", -"What did Winston Churchill say?") is the seed of a very vital book that needs to be on the shelves now.
You can probably cull much of the required materials from your writings on JW/DW and assemble it for whichever publishing house is intrigued.
Give it a peppery title. The audience is ready.
Maybe:
"FIGHTING BACK:
-how the non-Muslim world needs to respond to the threat of the violent Jihad, -and what our more honest leaders in the past said about the dangers of imperialistic Islam".
Cut, paste, enlighten.
“What happened to the Hindus of India under Muslim rule? Was it all wonderful, or is there reason to think that K. S. Lal and other Indian historians are right in their claim that between 60 and 70 million Hindus lost their lives?”
According to Mark Humphreys, approximately 60 million people were killed by the Islamic conquest of most of the Mediterranean.
We need a Christian Holocaust Day too.
What this article misses is the wider context of evil. Yes Islam is evil, so is Nazism and - the neocons in the White House. On the surface they look like opponents but on a deeper level, they share the same mindset and are allies.
Hugh said: "They can find out, as apparently George Bush was incapable of finding out or being told"
No, Bush is not incapable, he secretly admires Islam, just like Hitler did. Look at his buddies, the Saudies, the most corrupt people in the world. So while you stare at the monster if Islam, your own devil destructs the house right behind you. Wouldn't it be more productive to get rid of the greatest promoter is Islam: George Bush. Just recently i read: 160'000 rifles and pistols gone missing in Iraw. Oh well, arming Jihad, guess who is doing it all the time?
"Is it illegitimate to defend ourselves?"
If the unholy alliance (see book by the same name), comprising everyone from the islamofascists to the browshirts of the politically correct, has its way, it would be.
Our inalienable rights make this issue irrelevant, despite that unholy alliances wish for it not to be.
Then again, they think only THEY have those rights, and we normal, rational, common sense folks do not.
However, they will continue to push it...until we push back...and when we the people push back, it's damned scary.
From the Suffolk Resolves, of September 6, 1774:
"Whereas the power but not the justice, the vengeance but not the wisdom ….which of old persecuted, scourged, and exiled our fugitive parents from their native shores, now pursues us, their guiltless children, with unrelenting severity: And whereas, this, then savage and uncultivated desart, was purchased by the toil and treasure, or acquired by the blood and valor of those our venerable progenitors; to us they bequeathed the dearbought inheritance, to our care and protection they consigned it, and the most sacred obligations are upon us to transmit the glorious purchase, unfettered by power, unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved offspring. On the fortitude, on the wisdom and on the exertions of this important day, is suspended the fate of this new world, and of unborn millions. If a boundless extent of continent, swarming with millions, will tamely submit to live, move and have their being at the arbitrary will of a licentious minister, they basely yield to voluntary slavery, and future generations shall load their memories with incessant execrations.--On the other hand, if we arrest the hand which would ransack our pockets, if we disarm the parricide which points the dagger to our bosoms, if we nobly defeat that fatal edict which proclaims a power to frame laws for us in all cases whatsoever, thereby entailing the endless and numberless curses of slavery upon us, our heirs and their heirs forever…..”
............
“That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.”
Isn't that even truer today than it was back in 1774? Hasn't there been a lot of building up since then, quitea few fathers who have since 1774 "fought, bled, and died" in order to "hand[those civil and religious rights and liberties]down entire to future generations"?
What do you think of the words and spirit of the Suffolk Resolves? Do you think it's a bit much, a bit too melodramatic? Or do you like it, do you think this kind of language, a bit updated perhaps, is exactly what is called for, and is exactly what we are not getting, and what our "taking-a-leadership-role leaders" are not capable of saying, much less of thinking?
Swissy - ...No, Bush is not incapable, he secretly admires Islam, just like Hitler did.
You are deluded and take facts, distorting them to your own political view! I can argue that Hitler was the nicest man on earth with you logic.
That is the bigger problem in this country. Some are so eat-up about Bush they have forgotten who the enemy is (ISLAM). I am saying this in light of not liking some of the thinks that have gone wrong in the war and that Bush (as far as I can tell) things that Islam is being hijack by extremists. The truth is, if you are a devout Muslim and follow all of the teachings of the Koran and feel you are God's special gift to humanity
YOU WILL BE A TERRORIST
I am not going to say or reply anymore to you rants so save you fingers typing anything. Just wake up!
We in the West have an obligation to defend a civilizational legacy, even if many of us, individually, have not exactly proved ourselves worthy of it.
How true. What are we to make of the bishop who suggested that all Christians refer to God as "Allah" in order ease tensions with Muslims? He says our religion doesn't care what name we give to God. But then why should it matter to Muslims?
Don't they say "there is no god but God"? Let them use the local word for God.
Pauline Hanson riding on the Muslim immigration ticket:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=286783
Heres what Mahatma Gandhi (himself a big believer in Hindu Muslim unity) said
Following the assassination of Swami Shraddhanand at the hands of a Muslim fanatic in December, 1926, Mahatma Gandhi had said: "Mussalmans have an ordeal to pass through. There can be no doubt that they are too free with the knife and the pistol. The sword is an emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment where the sword was, and still remains, the supreme law. The message of Jesus has proved ineffective because the environment was unready to receive it. So with the message of the Prophet. The sword is yet too much in evidence among the Mussalmans. It must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it means - peace." This was 80 years ago.
great essay from hugh exposing islam and the so called war profiteer mohammed.robert spencer and hugh fitzgerald are the true modern day prophets sent by god to expose the religion of peace and its profit dirty old mohammed.
"Many people in this country have gone far beyond their so-called leaders, Democratic and Republican, in their understanding of Islam."
--Hugh Fitzgerald
It is up to us--who are not being fooled by Islam and the Islamics--to find and elect leaders of equal understanding.
No more having to choose between a Saudi-blemished sprout of a clan tainted by National-Socialist complicity and a simpering would-be Brahmin too eager to be accepted as an equal by the too-stupid-to-stop-the-Muslim-invasion-of-their-lands Europeans.
Are there such potential leaders out there? Yes.
Can they be elected? Yes--under the right conditions.
What conditions? When things become not only worse but unbearable.
We're getting there fast.
"But Islam was born in an environment where the sword was, and still remains, the supreme law"
Islam was one man's deception scheme to enjoy power, pelf and women. That man had to use the sword to subdue questioning (which might have led to his exposure and lynching). But his scam has lived on and there are a billion plus people benefitting from it.
Hence the only way to end the scam is to use the same sword (with bombs, now) to make the followers of Islam to see reason. Desperate situations need desperate remedies. We are racing to the desperate remedy pretty fast.
Hugh,
Would you please post a bibliography of the "especially in accessibly cheap Indian editions" to which you refer?
Hugh,
Would you please post a bibliography of the "especially in accessibly cheap Indian editions" to which you refer?
Hugh,
This is unrelated to this thread, but I don't know how to contact you otherwise.
In the comments for a different post, about a week ago, you posted an article in Italian about the atrocities committed by the Moroccan troops in Italy in WW2. I'm a native Italian and I would like to translate that article into English, so that non-Italian speakers here can read it. Are you interested? If so, how would you like me to share/send you the translation?
Hugh,
This is unrelated to this thread, but I don't know how to contact you otherwise.
In the comments for a different post, about a week ago, you posted an article in Italian about the atrocities committed by the Moroccan troops in Italy in WW2. I'm a native Italian and I would like to translate that article into English, so that non-Italian speakers here can read it. Are you interested? If so, how would you like me to share/send you the translation?
Mi piacerebbe moltissimo. And when you are done, please send a copy to me via Robert so that it can be put up here and at one other website. And if you feel like translating from Englsh into Italian any of the articles I put up at this website go ahead. There may be a place for them. Thanks to many, to for example Montanelli, for the history lessons in his Stanze, to Oriana Fallaci, to Magdi Allam, and to many others, Italy is not as far gone as some other places. Italy can still save itself.
Thanks for that great quotation from the Suffolk Resolves, Hugh. Sadly, new to me, but three seconds on this internet-thingy and I was looking at the whole thing.
What do we think of its words and spirit? I think the question is rather -- and not to get all language-mystical on you -- what do its words and spirit think of us? I bow my head in shame.
But really, who can get fired up while tangled up in all of those subordinate clauses -- I fathered three fine Christian sons before I got to that first, longed for "therefore." Talk about your schrecklichkeiten der englischen sprache! And what are everyday Yankee moms and dads to think about it? Why doesn't it mention the children? I just can't relate.
And are these Minutement the same ones Michael Moore was talking about when comparing the Iraqi resistance to them?
And what's all that stuff about "their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the arts of war as soon as possible, and do, for that purpose, appear under arms at least once every week." Are these guys fascists or something? Haven't they read the Constitution?
What do I think about its words and spirit? Well, to quote Robert's favorite bard -- "play it f***ing loud!" and more cowbells!
Hugh,
Excuse me, I need to know how to send you the translation. I can't find a mail address.
Francesco--
When you are at the homepage -- www.jihadwatch.org -- you will see at the bottom left a way to "Contact" Robert Spencer. E-mail him, and he will forward that e-mail to me.